in Re: Juan Enriquez ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                     NO. 12-14-00292-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    IN RE:                                           §
    JUAN ENRIQUEZ,                                   §       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    RELATOR                                          §
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    Relator, Juan Enriquez, requests a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to rule on
    his postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus. The respondent is the Honorable
    Deborah Oakes Evans, Judge of the 87th Judicial District Court, Anderson County, Texas. The
    real party in interest is the State of Texas.
    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Relator was convicted of murder with malice aforethought and, on October 19, 1966, was
    sentenced to death. See Ex parte Enriquez, 
    490 S.W.2d 546
    , 547 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). He
    appealed, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on
    February 14, 1968. Enriquez v. State, 
    429 S.W.2d 141
    , 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1968). On
    June 29, 1972, the United States Supreme Court declared that “the imposition and the carrying
    out of the death penalty in these cases” constituted cruel and unusual punishment. See Furman
    v. Georgia, 
    408 U.S. 238
    , 239-40, 
    92 S. Ct. 2726
    , 2727, 
    33 L. Ed. 2d 346
    (1972). One of the
    cases decided with Furman was Branch v. Texas. After the Supreme Court’s decision, the
    Honorable Preston Smith, Governor of the State of Texas, commuted Relator’s sentence to
    imprisonment for life. See Ex parte 
    Enriquez, 490 S.W.2d at 547
    .
    On July 9, 2003, Relator filed an application in the trial court requesting a postconviction
    writ of habeas corpus. He asserted that he “is detained in the state penitentiary without judgment
    or sentence” and therefore “is detained . . . solely on a governor’s proclamation issued
    August 31, 1972.” However, he alleged, the governor’s proclamation is insufficient to authorize
    his continued detention. Consequently, he sought habeas relief under Article V, Section 8 of the
    Texas Constitution. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8 (setting out broad grant of jurisdiction to district
    courts). According to Relator, the respondent has not ruled on his habeas application, which has
    been pending for more than eleven years.
    AVAILABILITY OF MANDAMUS
    Initially, we note that, in a prior appeal filed by Relator, the San Antonio court of appeals
    determined that “[t]he legal effect of a commutation of sentence on the prisoner’s status is as
    though the prisoner’s sentence had originally been assessed at the commuted punishment.”
    Enriquez v. State, No. 04-10-00071-CR, 
    2011 WL 2637370
    , at *2 (Tex. App.–San Antonio
    July 6, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Thus, “no change in the
    original judgment is necessary,” and “no additional procedure is required for the prisoner to be
    validly sentenced to the commuted sentence.” 
    Id. Therefore, we
    conclude that Relator is being
    detained under the original judgment of conviction as modified by the governor’s commutation.
    Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07 is the exclusive procedure available to
    an applicant seeking relief from a felony judgment imposing a penalty other than death. See
    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 §§ 1, 5 (West Supp. 2014). Moreover, the court of
    criminal appeals has recently clarified that because it has exclusive Article 11.07 jurisdiction, an
    intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction to rule on matters pertaining to a pending Article
    11.07 application. See Padieu v. Court of Appeal of Tex., Fifth Dist., 
    392 S.W.3d 115
    , 117-18
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
    Because Article 11.07 applies to Relator’s application for habeas relief, and this Court
    has no jurisdiction to rule on any matters pertaining to a pending Article 11.07 habeas
    application, we are without jurisdiction to reach the merits of Relator’s complaint. Accordingly,
    we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. CODE
    CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 § 1; 
    Padieu, 392 S.W.3d at 117-18
    .
    Opinion delivered December 17, 2014.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
    (DO NOT PUBLISH)
    2
    COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    JUDGMENT
    DECEMBER 17, 2014
    NO. 12-14-00292-CR
    JUAN ENRIQUEZ,
    Relator
    v.
    HON. DEBORAH OAKES EVANS,
    Respondent
    Appeal from the 87th District Court
    of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87-9821)
    ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed
    by JUAN ENRIQUEZ, who is the relator in Cause No. 87-9821, pending on the docket of the
    87th Judicial District Court of Anderson County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus
    having been filed herein on October 14, 2014, and the same having been duly considered,
    because it is the opinion of this Court that it lacks jurisdiction, it is therefore CONSIDERED,
    ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is,
    hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
    By per curiam opinion.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-14-00292-CR

Filed Date: 12/19/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/19/2014